What does this practically, in concreto, mean? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be decent people and take into account the feelings of their families? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be respectful instead of arrogant? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be chaste, instead of promiscuous? — Agustino

And there you have it. It is immoral for a woman to be and do what it is a virtue for a man to be and do. And that is why, when you look around, you find that women hardly ever do x, y, or z, while men do them as much as they can.

I won't give two taels for your abstract definition. What does this practically, in concreto, mean? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be decent people and take into account the feelings of their families? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be respectful instead of arrogant? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be chaste, instead of promiscuous? Is that a form of lacking in "social privilege"? — Agustino

Sylvia Walby describes it concretely as:

• The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation
• The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children.
• Violence: women are more prone to being abused
• Paid work: women are likely to be paid less
• Sexuality: women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively
• Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture

Other examples include women being discouraged (or forbidden) from certain types of education or employment, or even driving.

It is immoral for a woman to be and do what it is a virtue for a man to be and do — unenlightened

Right. So decency is immoral for a woman because it is moral for a man. great

The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation — Michael

Still abstract and vague. The fact women are less likely to be involved in politics isn't even something to be bothered by. You need additional assumptions for that. We have had prominent women leaders through history. Cleopatra, Queen Seondeok, Lady Mishil, Joan D'Arc, etc.

The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children. — Michael

Right, and that's bad no? >:O Housework and raising children is inferior to having a career, right? >:O

Violence: women are more prone to being abused — Michael

Being more prone doesn't also mean they are abused more. But yes, this is or can be a problem.

Paid work: women are likely to be paid less — Michael

Ok, she should be paid equally for equal work.

Sexuality: women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively — Michael

It should be treated the same as a man's - promiscuity should never be encouraged or respected.

It is immoral for a woman to be and do what it is a virtue for a man to be and do
— unenlightened
Right. So decency is immoral for a woman because it is moral for a man. great — Agustino

I understand you to be saying that womanly virtues are different from manly virtues in their expression; that women should behave differently than men. Have I got that wrong?

I understand you to be saying that womanly virtues are different from manly virtues in their expression; that women should behave differently than men. Have I got that wrong? — unenlightened

No that is wrong. Men and women have the same virtues, however, different accents are placed on different virtues for each. For example, a man being courageous is emphasised more than a woman being courageous. But a woman being compassionate is emphasised more than a man being compassionate - although both of these are virtues that belong to both. But they should be more accentuated in the one than in the other.

For example, a man being courageous is emphasised more than a woman being courageous. But a woman being compassionate is emphasised more than a man being compassionate - although both of these are virtues that belong to both. But they should be more accentuated in the one than in the other. — Agustino

Why should they be more accentuated in the one than in the other?

Why should they be more accentuated in the one than in the other? — Michael

Because by their nature men and women are so constituted to complement each other.

But they should be more accentuated in the one than in the other. — Agustino

Yes, that's what I thought. That is what patriarchy stands for, as you said. It is the male view that it is right for men to dominate, for men especially to dictate what is right for men and for women. So respect is more of a virtue for women, and arrogance is less of a vice for men to take one of your examples.

Why should they be more accentuated in the one than in the other?
— Michael
Because by their nature men and women are so constituted to complement each other. — Agustino

And the circle is complete. It ought to be so because it is so, and if ever it isn't so it ought to be so because it is so.

It is the male view that it is right for men to dominate, for men especially to dictate what is right for men and for women — unenlightened

I disagree with this.

So respect is more of a virtue for women, and arrogance is less of a vice for men to take one of your examples. — unenlightened

I wouldn't agree with this.

And the circle is complete. It ought to be so because it is so, and if ever it isn't so it ought to be so because it is so. — unenlightened

Yes - it's the only way things can work and last. You're free to think otherwise and try it, but don't blame me when you'll fail :) The proof is in the pudding.

Since men also dominate the lower end of the spectrum, most reckless idiots are therefore men. The Darwin Award -- a symbolic post hoc award that commemorates individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives, the winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival -- is dominated by men:

Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture — Michael

I've heard this claim (that women are poorly-represented in media and popular culture) made before, and I honestly don't know what is the basis for it. I've said before: watch almost any rom-com, sit-com, commercial, etc. and tell me which gender is more often portrayed as childish, unreasonable, incompetent, or boorish (hint: it's not the woman).

Indeed, "pop culture" and media lately seem to be producing a steady stream of works in which a strong female is the protagonist (the two most recent Star Wars films come to mind, for example).

Indeed, "pop culture" and media lately seem to be producing a steady stream of works in which a strong female is the protagonist (the two most recent Star Wars films come to mind, for example). — Arkady

Yes no wonder, the feminazis from Hollywood are in power... :-}

Yes no wonder, the feminazis from Hollywood are in power... — Agustino

Please do me a favor, Agustino, and don't do me any favors.

Please do me a favor, Agustino, and don't do me any favors. — Arkady

And that is supposed to mean what exactly? :-}

I wonder if folks would be interested enough to lend an ear to Adrian Piper, artist, feminist, philosopher, harridan.

I have to say I don't think a lot of those apply in western cultures.

— Michael

The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation — Michael

It may be true that there are more men in positions of political power than women, but I think this is more often because men are more dedicated in pursuit of this goal than are women.
This disparity can be accounted for because of differences in men and women and I don't agree that it is the result of an oppressive patriarchy.

Violence: women are more prone to being abused — Michael

This actually is not true.
In domestic disputes women are more likely to initiate violence, men are simply better at inflicting it than are women so that the threat to women is higher.
Over all men are more likely to be the victims of violence in general than are women.
The disparity here is because men in general are more capable of causing injury when a domestic conflict is elevated to violence.

Paid work: women are likely to be paid less — Michael

Again this is on average and it is because men are more likely to pursue wage increases and promotions compared to women.
When competing with men women are less likely to view themselves as a valued asset compared to men.
This disparity is the result of difference between men and women not systematic oppression.
For the most part when a woman is doing the same exact job as a man, with the same amount of experience and qualifications, the pay is equal.

Sexuality: women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively — Michael

Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture — Michael

Both masculinity and femininity has idealized representations in culture, the expectation to represent those idealizations are just as irrational for men as they are for women.
I simply don't agree there is any disparity here.

Modern feminism is mostly supported by men who enjoy promiscuity and don't have a strong desire to get married (and they complement this with the facetious claim that they "care" about women >:O), and by women who enjoy being :-x .

Authority is the issue for Agustino here. Patriarchy is (in part) the identification of when women lack authority over their lives and status. As an authority , feminism undermines marriage because it destroys its necessary application. The feminist will never say the only relevant question is whether a woman is respecting marriage's authority.

Under feminism, women become more important than marriage, more important than the status and desires of men. Authority of their lives passes to them. They are understood to independent agents of their own volition. In the context of marriage, relationships and social positions, it involves working with their decisions rather than being passive actors who just fill a desired social outcome.

Augstino complains Patriarchy is nebulous, but it's really not. Certainly, it is not defined in a few specific terms, but that's because it refers to a system and authority where women lack power, where an authority governs their lives without respect for the women themsleves. Any society will such a system qualifies as Patriarchy. As such, it can take various forms, which is why there is not some specific list of rules for what states amount to a Patriarchy.

Patriarchy is (in part) the identification of when women lack authority over their lives and status. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Right, so disrespecting, say, your husband, is having authority? That's what a woman having authority is right? And by contrast a woman who respects her husband, she doesn't have any authority? Because having authority is being pieces of shit to each other. Never knew.

The feminist will never say the only relevant question is whether a woman is respecting marriage's authority. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I never knew that a woman is free in-so-far as she's allowed to disrespect and plunder things that are of value, ie in-so-far as she's allowed to fulfil her own greed and lust.

:-} :-d

Certainly, it is not defined in a few specific terms, but that's because it refers to a system and authority where women lack power, where an authority governs their lives without respect for the women themsleves. Any society will such a system qualifies as Patriarchy. — TheWillowOfDarkness

More abstract terms won't rescue you from the accusation of empty abstraction, away from the concrete realities that underlie things. Your feminism is just codename for vice, promiscuity and lust.

Under feminism, women become more important than marriage, more important than the status and desires of men. Authority of their lives passes to them. They are understood to independent agents of their own volition. In the context of marriage, relationships and social positions, it involves working with their decisions rather than being passive actors who just fill a desired social outcome. — TheWillowOfDarkness

(Y) Insightful. Marriage is the hub of the whole thing.

Since men also dominate the lower end of the spectrum, most reckless idiots are therefore men. — Emptyheady

Men who start small businesses are twice as likely to fail as women. Yet Steve Jobs was a man. True.

Under feminism, women become more important than marriage, more important than the status and desires of men. Authority of their lives passes to them. They are understood to independent agents of their own volition. In the context of marriage, relationships and social positions, it involves working with their decisions rather than being passive actors who just fill a desired social outcome. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This "insightful" passage. Let's see. So apparently, listen to this everyone... Just listen to this... Apparently, women are free, independent agents of their own volition, when they are permitted to disrespect marriage - so the equivalence is rendered between disrespect of marriage (and virtue) and being an independent agent. I guess, according to Willow, independent agents are those who are most free to give in to their lusts - and those who, on the contrary, restrain their lusts, they are the most slavish. "Working with their decisions" - right, if they suddenly decide "fuck the family", then fuck the family it is, because that's what being a fucking independent agent acting out of your own volition is - that's freedom! >:O What a grand trick, performed by a capable magician :-d

I'm just going to assume you're being serious here, dude. I gather you wouldn't be able to tolerate the way of life that is now common in my world. Nobody's asking you to. You live your way, we'll live our's, OK?

It can be being pieces of shit to each other, yes (but then so is the application of authority without reference to people as free agents). Not surprising though: we are talking about power here, which is not the same as ethics (though you seem to confuse the two sometimes). Who do you think is shocked by this exactly? Are you really that naive?

Then again, power can also mean the opposite. A person may use their freedom to behave well towards others.

Power is not ethics either. So no, the feminist isn't just allowed to fufuil her greed and lust at the expense of everyone else. It does mean, however, that such moral questions are thought of as a question of an independent acting being, rather than just a passive thing that's just going to fill a role.

I'm just going to assume you're being serious here, dude. I gather you wouldn't be able to tolerate the way of life that is now common in my world. Nobody's asking you to. You live your way, we'll live our's, OK? — Mongrel

No this way of life isn't common in your country actually. It's common just in the very developed and progressive places like NY, California, etc. The rest of the country, the largest share of the country in geographic terms actually, lives quite traditionally still for the most part. But your way of life is indeed suffocating these other regions, and they'll fight back, and you won't win. You stand no chance of winning. You realise that in the grand narrative of things, progressivism will die out. Reproduction and strength require discipline, which progressivism lack. If you lack devotion to the family, and if you lack the virtue of self-sacrifice when necessary, you and your kind will be wiped out in evolutionary terms. Don't delude yourself.

It can be being pieces of shit to each other, yes — TheWillowOfDarkness

Good. So that's it, your feminism rewards bad behaviour, and punishes good behaviour. That's certainly a smart move.

It does mean, however, that such moral questions are thought of as a question of an independent acting being, rather than just a passive thing that's just going to fill a role. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What the hell does this mean in non-abstract terms? Does this fucking mean that she's allowed to abandon her family for example without facing any consequences? Does this being "an independent acting being" (which is actually an empty and nonsensical abstraction), does this practically, not in abstract terms, but in concreto, does this mean she can be a little snitch? :-}

Perhaps much more importantly than anything else, is this "being an independent acting being" a codename for "lacking skin in the game"? We all know what happens when people don't have skin in the game. Just take a look at Wall Street ;)

No this way of life isn't common in your country actually. It's common just in the very developed and progressive places like NY, California, etc. The rest of the country, the largest share of the country in geographic terms actually, lives quite traditionally still for the most part. — Agustino

I have no idea how you got that impression, dude, but it's wrong.